Whatever wu wei means, and there is nothing close to a consensus on this, it does not exclude the plans and intentions of the authors of the Tao Te Ching to commit to putting things into words. — Fooloso4

It's true, the Tao Te Ching, Chuang Tzu, and other Taoist texts are ambiguous. That's considered, as the cliche goes, a feature, not a bug. I don't claim to be, and I'm certain you don't claim to be, an expert on the plans and intentions of Lao Tzu. I just take him at his word.

I will point out that your argument begs the question. You state authoritatively that Lao Tzu had plans and intentions to put things in writing, but whether plans and intentions are required to act is the question on the table.

but whether plans and intentions are required to act is the question on the table. — T Clark

The question is too general. Were plans and intentions required to compile and organize the work called the Tao Te Ching? It did not happen spontaneously. Are plans and intentions required to read and attempt to understand the Tao Te Ching?

Consider Zhuangzi's Cook Ting. Did he learn his butchering skill without plans or intentions? His knife does not get dull because he does not hack. He cuts between the spaces in the joints.

Were plans and intentions required to compile and organize the work called the Tao Te Ching? — Fooloso4

If Lao Tzu lived in accordance with the Tao, then, no, no plans or intention were requried.

It did not happen spontaneously. — Fooloso4

According to the Tao Te Ching, it did. Again, you are using the conclusions you favor as arguments in this discussion.

Are plans and intentions required to read and attempt to understand the Tao Te Ching? — Fooloso4

They aren't required, but they're hard to avoid for us normal non-sage humans.

Consider Zhuangzi's Cook Ting. Did he learn his butchering skill without plans or intentions? — Fooloso4

Almost certainly.

According to the Tao Te Ching, it did. — T Clark

Really? Can you cite a reference?

Almost certainly. — T Clark

The story says otherwise.

The story says otherwise. — Fooloso4

Here is Thomas Merton's version of the story. I've hidden it because it's long:

Here's what one noted mystic had to say in 1912: — T Clark

Russell isn’t saying actions have no cause either. Because such a view is frankly incoherent. He’s making very specific criticisms of things which I’m not claiming.

I am far from denying that there may be such sequences which in fact never do fail. It may be that there will never be an exception to the rule that when a stone of more than a certain mass, moving with more than a certain velocity, comes in contact with a pane of glass of less than a certain thickness, the glass breaks. I also do not deny that the observation of such regularities, even when they are not without exceptions, is useful in the infancy of a science: the observation that unsupported bodies in air usually fall was a stage on the way to the law of gravitation. What I deny is that science assumes the existence of invariable uniformities of sequence of this kind, or that it aims at discovering them.

I’m not arguing for anything like that.

Call them reasons, determinants, or whatever you like.

True, some actions could be magic. But that really is mysticism. I think it’s a misunderstanding of eastern thought, and as I see it happens frequently. In the same way that new agers latch on to quantum mechanics.

Follows its own instinct
Guided by natural line, — Cutting up an Ox - Thomas Merton Version

So we’re replacing “plans and intentions” with “instinct and natural line,” etc. Fine.

When I first started playing guitar, I needed to think about what I was doing and where my fingers went, etc. After years of playing, I don’t have to do that any more.

So guitar playing is now…supernatural? Beyond all understanding? Causeless? Influence-less? Done for no reason and without any motivation? I start playing, and have no memory of how or why I picked it up— I just play. Come on.

This really must be word games. Use whatever word you think is better, but let’s not descend into the nonsense.

The old Heidegger example: If I enter a room, I have to turn the doorknob— but I don’t try to turn the doorknob, have beliefs about it, have memory of it. All I know is that here I am, and I must have done it. Is this wu wei? Maybe — I think of it as more to do with skill, but it’s in the same ballpark. Unconscious or non-conscious skilled activity, of which there are many examples in life.

Analysis of habits lends plenty of evidence to the idea of non-theoretical types of behavior as well.

So I’m a firm believer in stuff like this. And meditation. But again — we don’t have to pretend that it’s magic to talk about it.

There are better translations. Here is one. [Added: chapter 3.2]

Cook Ding says:

At the beginning, when I first began carving up oxen, all I could see was the whole carcass.
After three years I could no longer see the carcass whole ...

It is because he had been dividing oxen for three years that he could no longer see the carcass as a whole. He saw that it is made up of parts. He say now:

I follow the natural form slicing the major joints I guide the knife through the big hollows ...

The ability to guide his knife takes skill developed through practice. But this is not the difference between him and a good cook:

What your servant loves, my lord, is the Dao, and that is a step beyond skill.

Going beyond skill does not mean to bypass skill. The cultivation of skill is an essential step.


I would still like to know where you found the claim that the Tao Te Ching occurred spontaneously.

If Lao Tzu lived in accordance with the Tao, then, no, no plans or intention were requried. — T Clark

There is general agreement that Lao Tzu is not the sole author. There is less agreement as to whether he was an actual person.

Russell isn’t saying actions have no cause either. — Mikie

He said "In the following paper I wish, first, to maintain that the word is so inextricably bound up with misleading associations as to make its complete extrusion from the philosophical vocabulary desirable." That's pretty definitive, your rationalization notwithstanding.

True, some actions could be magic. — Mikie

Now you're just throwing out a straw man to paint me as a mystic. Dirty, dirty.

I think it’s a misunderstanding of eastern thought, and as I see it happens frequently. In the same way that new agers latch on to quantum mechanics. — Mikie

Another non-argument by innuendo. You should be ashamed.

When I first started playing guitar, I needed to think about what I was doing and where my fingers went, etc. After years of playing, I don’t have to do that any more. — Mikie

When I play sometimes the experience is what I would describe as wu wei. Other times I can't get out of my own way. On occasion it is as if I am watching myself play. But that is the result of many years of study and practice. It involves muscle memory which would not have developed without plans and intentions.

... we don’t have to pretend that it’s magic to talk about it. — Mikie

But I have to admit that sometimes it feels as if it is.

So we’re replacing “plans and intentions” with “instinct and natural line,” etc. Fine.

When I first started playing guitar, I needed to think about what I was doing and where my fingers went, etc. After years of playing, I don’t have to do that any more.

So guitar playing is now…supernatural? Beyond all understanding? Causeless? Influence-less? Done for no reason and without any motivation? I start playing, and have no memory of how or why I picked it up— I just play. Come on. — Mikie

This is really pitiful.

You just keep restating your conclusion over and over as if it were an argument.

Nuff said. I'm done.

There are better translations. — Fooloso4

:snort:

I have no objections to the version you provided. It doesn't change the meaning of the verse. There is this commentary at the end of it:

The tale of Cook Ding is in some respects the central tale of the Zhuangzi. It belongs to a set of stories that are sometimes referred to as the “knack passages” of the text. In these tales, individuals penetrate to a state of some sort of unity with the Dao by means of the performance of some thoroughly mastered skill, which they have acquired through long practice of an art (which may be called a dao, as in “the dao of archery,” and so forth). The passages celebrate the power of spontaneously performed skill mastery to provide communion with the spontaneous processes of Nature. — Chuang Tzu - The Tale of Cook Ding

Note "spontaneously performed skill."

I would still like to know where you found the claim that the Tao Te Ching occurred spontaneously.

If Lao Tzu lived in accordance with the Tao, then, no, no plans or intention were requried.
— T Clark — Fooloso4

Reread what I wrote. I never said Lao Tzu had no plans or intentions for writing the Tao Te Ching and I don't know of anywhere it says he didn't.

You and @Mikie should both be ashamed at such rotten arguments. I'm all done.

Another observation about Cook Ding:

In the opening paragraph:

... every move was in rhythm. It was as though he were performing the Dance of the Mulberry Grove or keeping to the beat of the Constant Source music.

And when he is done:

I stand with knife raised and face all four directions in turn, prancing in place with complete satisfaction.

(In Ziporyn's translation he just stands there)

There is a sense of motion and rhythm, of dancing.

It should also be noted how Zhuangzi's stories are of ordinary people teaching those of a higher social rank.

“How fine!” said Lord Wenhui. “Listening to the words of Cook Ding, I have learned how to nurture life!”

@Mikie @Fooloso4

A) Largely non-cognitive, spontaneously improvising flow state within a mastered skill
is the same as
B) readiness to hand + disclosive attunement (I know you both Heidegger, that is why this is here)
is the same as
C)

A good traveler has no fixed plans
and is not intent upon arriving.
A good artist lets his intuition
lead him wherever it wants.
A good scientist has freed himself of concepts
and keeps his mind open to what is.

Just seems that sees what counts as a "cause" is something a theoretical judgement derives, rather than being part of the oneness that forms the feedback between body and environment. That reciprocity provides the judgements which would conceive the causes, after the fact.

Escalate A and B to skill as a lived pattern (love, job, hobby, life routines as life itself), same message as C.

IMO anyway. Seems a quibble.

:snort:

I have no objections to the version you provided. It doesn't change the meaning of the verse. — T Clark

Why the snort? The best translations are being done by scholars who have studied the language, the history, and the philosophies of China and the West. The virtues of their translations may not be readily apparent to you based on a single story.

Note "spontaneously performed skill — T Clark

It cannot be spontaneously performed without skill. The skill comes first and it takes practice to go beyond skill.

Reread what I wrote. I never said Lao Tzu had no plans or intentions for writing the Tao Te Ching and I don't know of anywhere it says he didn't. — T Clark

You said:

the idea of "wu wei," acting without acting, without intention, without purpose, is central to the teachings. — T Clark

and:

That's the essense of wu wei - following intuition with no plans or intentions. — T Clark

I pointed out that:

.. there are Taoist teachers and authors. There is certainly intention and purpose in what they do. — Fooloso4

and:

Whatever wu wei means, and there is nothing close to a consensus on this, it does not exclude the plans and intentions of the authors of the Tao Te Ching to commit to putting things into words. — Fooloso4

In response, first you said:

whether plans and intentions are required to act is the question on the table. — T Clark

but then:

If Lao Tzu lived in accordance with the Tao, then, no, no plans or intention were requried. — T Clark

and in response to my comment that it did not happen spontaneously:

According to the Tao Te Ching, it did. — T Clark

You still have not provided the evidence to back that up.

Seems a quibble. — fdrake

As I see it, this is what is at issue:

Actions arise spontaneously from within without reflection. — T Clark

I don't doubt that this happens, but simply acting spontaneously without reflection is not what wu wei is about, otherwise someone without impulse control or someone experiencing road rage or anyone with a cleaver could butcher an ox as long as they did it without reflection.

I am not claiming that this is what Clark is claiming, but that there is more to it than what is stated.

Seems a quibble. — fdrake

Thanks for the summary. I don't think it's a quibble, it's metaphysics. One way or the other I'm ready to be done with it.

As I noted, I don't think you and @Mikie are arguing fairly. You just keep throwing out rhetorical obstacles to try to trip me up rather than trying address my arguments.

I'm done.

Then why talk like a mystic? There are reasons (and causes) for meditating, for philosophizing, etc. To claim otherwise, and then citing Russell, is just playing games.

I’ll ignore your hysterics. Next time take some responsibility and argue better, and clearer.

But I have to admit that sometimes it feels as if it is. — Fooloso4

Sure. I know people often talk about how when they’re “in the zone,” it feels like they’re not in control, etc.



:up: You’re probably right.

I am sorry you feel that way, but I am surprised. I have no intention of trying to trip you up. I am trying to address the question of wu wei. It is nothing personal. I have said nothing against you. You on the other hand tell me I should be ashamed of my arguments.

I am puzzled by what wu wei means in practice. It seems to me that there is something more to it than you have said. For one, the cultivation of skills. For another, a way of seeing. What in another context might be called an "expert eye".

There is a great deal of effort behind effortless action. This often goes unrecognized. I brought up Cook Ting because it addresses this and the opposite of effortless action, what he calls hacking. Forcing one's way through rather than, so to speak, seeing the joints and spaces, the natural divide of things.

When I post I have in mind others who might be reading. Even if not everything I say applies to you someone else might be interested.

[Added: See my next post.]

I know people often talk about how when they’re “in the zone,” it feels like they’re not in control, etc. — Mikie

On the other hand, it does not feel like I have lost control, that I need to gain control.

The thing to frustrates a lot of musicians is not being about to get in the zone. Sometimes it happens and sometimes it doesn't. You can't make it happen, but I think there are ways to allow it to happen more often.

The thing to frustrates a lot of musicians is not being about to get in the zone. Sometimes it happens and sometimes it doesn't. You can't make it happen, but I think there are ways to allow it to happen more often. — Fooloso4

Sorry to jump in without reading everything, but “in the zone” is something I can hopefully comment on. With us creatives, the Achilles heel is discipline. Picasso said it best: “Inspiration exists, but it has to find you working.” I like this quote because it doesn’t dispel the myth (mythos) of creative inspiration, but it couches the fantastic within the monotonous everyday; that is, if you want to find inspiration, you must work. Hard. “Flow” comes and goes, but does so with the most frequency with those who show up to work.

if you want to find inspiration, you must work. — Noble Dust

As Bear Bryant said, "Victory is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration." Wait, no, he said "When the going gets tough, the tough get going," or was that Picasso.

As Bear Bryant said, "Victory is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration." Wait, no, he said "When the going gets tough, the tough get going," or was that Picasso — T Clark

Well, he could have said that, but what he did say was (Wiki):

Again, as at Kentucky, Bryant attempted to integrate the Texas A&M squad. "We'll be the last football team in the Southwest Conference to integrate", he was told by a Texas A&M official. "Well", Bryant replied, "then that's where we're going to finish in football."

During the 1960s in visits to my parents in Tuscaloosa I would go exercise climbing on Bear's metal coaching tower, maybe thirty feet high with a covered roof and staunch guardrail fence around the top to keep him from falling off. He had a metal seat/cage attached to a hoist that his players would crank him to the top where he would sit with his feet hanging over the edge and chest against the guardrail fence. Not saying much, letting his assistant coaches do most of the yelling. There was a metal winding stair to the top but I don't think he used it. He was the next thing to a Deity in Alabama. The photo below taken maybe ten years after I last watched him doesn't show the hoist. That would detract from is popular image.



Pop philosophy from Bear:

1) It’s awfully important to win with humility. It’s also important to lose. I hate to lose worse than anyone, but if you never lose you won’t know how to act. If you lose with humility, then you can come back.

2) I think the most important thing of all for any team is a winning attitude. The coaches must have it. The players must have it. The student body must have it. If you have dedicated players who believe in themselves, you don’t need a lot of talent.

3) Losing doesn’t make me want to quit. It makes me want to fight that much harder.

4) I know what it takes to win. If I can sell them on what it takes to win, then we are not going to lose too many football games.

5) If you believe in yourself and have dedication and pride – and never quit – you’ll be a winner. The price of victory is high but so are the rewards.

6) I have tried to teach them to show class, to have pride, and to display character. I think football, winning games, takes care of itself if you do that.

7) I honestly believe that if you are willing to out-condition the opponent, have confidence in your ability, be more aggressive than your opponent and have a genuine desire for team victory, you will become the national champions. If you have all the above, you will acquire confidence and poise, and you will have those intangibles that win the close ones.

8) First there are those who are winners, and know they are winners. Then there are the losers who know they are losers. Then there are those who are not winners, but don’t know it. They’re the ones for me. They never quit trying. They’re the soul of our game.

9) If we’d beaten ‘em, I wouldn’t be going out.

10) If wanting to win is a fault, as some of my critics seem to insist, then I plead guilty. I like to win. I know no other way. It’s in my blood.